Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • please complete this:   and scan up bothsides of your NTK read upload carefully PDF only please!!   safe to ignore powerless DCA's they are not bailiffs  
    • yes ring the court and get it moved directions might stay the same though for fee/WS exchange mind.   dx   dx  
    • Driver entered car park run by CEL Ltd .Tried to purchase lozenges  at Pharmacy , saw it was busy so left . Time there approximately 5 minutes . Left to go to pick up some goods  a couple of miles away . I have a copy of a collection of goods note with an approximate time on it  Stayed a while to chat with client On return journey stopped  to try again . Bought lozenges and left . There were no restrictions on returning  ANPR cameras registered first entry and last exit  Was sent photos showing vehicle with 2 blown up with the times on them   Company refuses to divulge landlord or show contract ....said it was data protection ! Photo of a sign blown up .....could be anywhere ! Been to site itself . No signs at entrance . When entering from main road nothing ! Where there is parking a few signs visible depending on parking space . Large sign on an external wall which can only be seen when walking out or entering from side road on the left . After a number of letters  I received demands from ZZPS ....a “debt collector “. They gave up on that ! This incident took pace in February . Now a Letter Before Court requesting details of my salary and how I intend to pay the debt  The length of stay is 40 minutes . Tiny car park !   Do know why there are even limits . Length of stay maybe 15 minutes in total . It is madness The pack of lozenges cost £185 ! Am 72 years old with multiple health problems ! Cannot let these cowboys win . Feel as though I am being intimidated . Very stressful ! Any  advice please ?I have drafted  together bits from all over the place ! Need it to stop ASAP !
    • Hi    This is my draft WS, please do let me know of nay changes or additions required, thanks.    IN THE County Court AT                                                                              CLAIM NO:      BETWEEN: CABOT FINANCIAL (UK) LIMITED   -and- (DEFENDANT)     ___________________________________________ WITNESS STATEMENT OF        INTRODUCTION    1. I, XXXX, the Defendant in this case, make this statement in support of my defence against the Claimant, Cabot Financial (UK) Limited.  The matters set out below are within my own knowledge, except where I indicate to the contrary.    THE DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO THE CLAIMANT’S WITNESS STATEMENT    2. The Claimant states in Paragraph 3, ‘….refer to various documents, true copiesof which are contained in the paginated bundle to this statement marked “JK”1’, but then states in para 4, ‘Acopy of the reconstituted agreementwith associated terms and conditions….pages 1-10’. There are 3 versions attached of the alleged Agreement and Terms & Conditions and according to para 4 they are not the original but ‘a reconstitutedversion’. They have attached 3 Agreements namely, ‘Original Agreement’, ‘Default Agreement’ and ‘Terms of your Capital One Credit Card Agreement’.  The Claimant has provided 3 sets of generic/reconstituted Agreement and Terms & conditions.     3. The Claimant in Para 4 also states ‘On or around 5thNovember 2012 the Defendant entered into a Credit Card Agreement,’ but Page 2 of JK1 has a date inserted 2/11/2012.  It has my name, address and a date inserted in the form but no mention of how the agreement was made, online, post or telephone, and furthermore not mentioned in the Claimant’s Witness Statement.     4. As a rule of thumb I always ensure that no 3rdparty is to contact me or to send me marketing information via telephone, post or electronically’, but Page 2 of JK1 has an unticked box, another indication that this is not an original agreement.    5. Page 5 of JK1 has too many typo mistakes in the heading as follows: TERMSOF YOUR CAPITALONE CREDITCARD AGREEMENT, furthermore there are no ‘full stop’ punctuations at the end of each sentence, this surely cannot be a document sent out by Capital One.     6. The Claimant states in Para 9 that my defence is a ‘templated defence’, requesting documents pursuant of CPR 31.14 and Section 78 of the Credit Card Act 1974, this is a defendant’s right for request of information but the Claimant has failed to provide the true original Credit Card Agreement and Terms & Conditions.   7. The Claimant states in Para 25 that, ‘the Claimant allowed the proceedings to be stayed in order to allow the parties to attempt settlement negotiations…..’ this is not correct as the Claim was stayed due to the Claimant not being able to provide the requested documents pursuant of my CPR 31.14 and Section 78 of the Credit Card Act 1974.   8. Para 30 and 31of the Witness Statement requests to restore the proceedings, to strike out the Defence, has requested for a Summary Judgement, together with costs to be assessed summarily by the court. I, the Defendant, strongly object to the Claimant’s Witness Statement requesting to lift the stay and enter Judgement. I believe therefore, that this should be denied and I respectfully ask for you to strike out the claim. My reasons for this have been outlined in points 1 to 7.    9. By the reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief and invite the Court to strike out the claim.   I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.    Signed:  Dated:
    • District Judge has considered the statements of case and directions questionnaire filed and allocated the claim to the small claims track on 13th January 2020 for 1 hour.    Claimant has by 16th December 2019 pay the court trial fee or file a properly completed application, otherwise the claim will be struck out with effect from 16th December.    I have a few questions if possible to get an answer from anyone please.    The following directions apply to this claim: 1. It says that each party must deliver to the other party and to the court office copies of all documents on which that party intends to rely at the hearing no later than fourteen days before the hearing.  My understanding this will my witness statement, images of the parking area, out of time sent NTK documents. Is this correct? What else am I not thinking about?    2. I have to leave country for important work trip from 10th to 19th of January 2020. Is there anything I can do to postpone this case since its booked for 13th January?  Thanks!      
  • Our picks

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 236 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

BA has already explained he cant do that.

 

its not £275 its £235, but as you didn't get the notice of enforcement either he cant charge that £75 either.

 

pers i'd be complaining to the council at all the lies you are being told regarding these fees as they ARE responsible for the actions of the bailiffs they employ to do their dirty work.

 

so as no bailiff enforcement is currently 'in force' as none of the fees can yet be charged...why not see if they'll let you set up an arrangement wit them directly?

might also be worthy to RING your local councillor tomorrow and make a pest of yourself too!!

 

search for posts by london1971 he has the info in his posts

if you cant find it i'll do it later.


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup,

 

Find your local Councillor contact details on the web. Email them and

 

Just explain everything, as you have here, and ask for the Bailiffs to be called off, and all fees cancelled because you never received a Notice Of Assignment. However make sure you say that you are willing to pay any outstanding Council Tax direct to the council.

 

Do this, and there is a 90% chance of this being solved in the next 24 hours.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:whoo:

PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry for the delay in replying had no internet, thanks for that info , we moved 180 mile away so probably being thick but do i find my councellor where i live now or the one for back up where the address was previously to contact?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

old council


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BA has already explained he cant do that.

 

I am afraid this seems to be incorrect DX

 

pers i'd be complaining to the council at all the lies you are being told regarding these fees as they ARE responsible for the actions of the bailiffs they employ to do their dirty work.

 

so as no bailiff enforcement is currently 'in force' as none of the fees can yet be charged...why not see if they'll let you set up an arrangement wit them directly?

might also be worthy to RING your local councillor tomorrow and make a pest of yourself too!!

 

search for posts by london1971 he has the info in his posts

if you cant find it i'll do it later.

 

As far as I can see this is incorrect, as the first(compliance) fee £75 is due on receipt by the bailiff of the order.

 

Stages of enforcement for which fees may be recovered – enforcement other than under High Court writs

 

5.—(1) The relevant stages of enforcement under an enforcement power which is not conferred by a High Court writ are as follows—

(a)

the compliance stage, which comprises all activities relating to enforcement from the receipt by the enforcement agent of instructions to use that procedure in relation to a sum to be recovered up to but not including the commencement of the enforcement stage;


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all , not sure if anyone can help..

 

.. still got this ongoing issue.

 

.. I have emailed the councillors for the area (as theres 3) a few times

 

one email I got a reply saying they had passed info over to relevant department!  

I’ve not heard anything back 

chased it again today, but not holding my breath.

 

 I’ve just received a phone call from the enforcement team saying they were at my door for removal of goods (I’m at work so good luck with that one)  

 

is my next step citizens advice ?

Or are they a waste of time

 

Bristol & Suitor are still saying “they can’t remove those charges”  as per my previous posts ..

 

even though I’ve still not received any letters apart from the one I had off them after my last phone call but that had all the charges on not just the £75..

 

I don’t know what else to do & it’s starting to get to me that I can’t just sort it out with these idiots.. any help appreciated 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Paying the council in an attempt to avoid fees, will of course not work, never has.

They will just send it on to the bailiff.

 

Your two choices are to suit it out until the EA sends the account back to the authority.(nulla bona) .At which point the fees will drop off, and you will be left with the original debt.  Conversely you could come to an arrangement with the bailiff to pay him by instalment. If you do this he may want to take control of your goods under a controlled goods agreement. Upto you.

 

 

Edited by Dodgeball

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/01/2019 at 15:56, ericsbrother said:

you need to know when it went to court to give the council the liability order.

 

being at an old address they probably did this but that also means they may still be chasing the debt at the old address rather than asking the court to change the paperwork.

 

This menas that you are likely to get a set aside if you apply for one and then you can pay what you owe rather than the fees as well.

 

Also a poke in the eye for the councl if they knew they were chasing you at the wrong address

You cannot set aside a liability order, it is made at a Magistrates court.


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dodgeball said:

You cannot set aside a liability order, it is made at a Magistrates court.

 

Of course you can, otherwise LOs mistakenly imposed could be enforced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 27/03/2019 at 12:43, md13 said:

Hi all , not sure if anyone can help..

 

 

Bristol & Suitor are still saying “they can’t remove those charges”  

I don’t know what else to do & it’s starting to get to me that I can’t just sort it out with these idiots.. any help appreciated 

 

When a new address is located, an enforcement company must abide by Regulation 8 of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 and issue a fresh Notice of Enforcement as outlined in my previous post (number 18).  You mention that Bristow & Sutor are continuing to disagree. Do you  have this in writing?

 

Edited by Bailiff Advice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

For the avoidance of doubt, in order to legally 'take control of goods' or to charge fees, an enforcement agent must issue a Notice of Enforcement and this MUST comply with Regulation 8 which states that the notice will not be considered as being legally served unless it is sent to the debtor:

'At the place, or one of the places, where the debtor USUALLY lives or carries on a trade or business'. 

 

In your particular case, B&S have undertaken checks and have established that you have moved. In this respect, they should have issued a fresh Notice of Enforcement to the address where you USUALLY live (which is number 6A).  Unless they are willing to do so, the position is very clear. They can neither take control of goods...or charge fees. To do so, would be unlawful.

 

You may wish to remind the company that unless they are wiling to issue a fresh Notice of Enforcement to your USUAL address (number 6a), that you will be looking to pay the ARREARS direct to the council. 

Edited by Bailiff Advice
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Andyorch said:

 

Indeed, but really no more than a potayto potahto situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Bailiff Advice said:

You may wish to remind the company that unless they are wiling to issue a fresh Notice of Enforcement to your USUAL address (number 6a), that you will be looking to pay the ARREARS direct to the council. 

 

Why give them the heads up? If you're advocating just paying direct then surely the OP should just do that rather than give the EA opportunity to add fees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, otterlyendo said:

 

Of course you can, otherwise LOs mistakenly imposed could be enforced.

Nope 

 

One of the reasons liability orders are issued through the magistrates court is that none of the civil CPR apply.

You cannot set aside any magistrates court action. Can you imagine the chaos. if liability orders could be challenged in this way.

 

 


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, otterlyendo said:

 

Why give them the heads up? If you're advocating just paying direct then surely the OP should just do that rather than give the EA opportunity to add fees.

Well no. I think when you say set aside most think of the civil precure, this is not the case here, as said CPR does not apply. From the link

Q&A: Setting Aside Liability Orders

Q.       The council is planning to enforce a liability order, but the debtor is seeking to set it aside on the basis that the debt is disputed.  How should we deal with this?

 

A.      Whilst the magistrates’ court does have the power to re-open criminal cases, there is no corresponding power in respect of non-payment of council tax or business rates, which is a civil matter.  Equally, there are provisions within the Civil Procedure Rules to set aside court orders in the county court and high court, but the CPR do not apply to magistrates’ court proceedings. 

 

Which I think is what I said.


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, otterlyendo said:

 

Why give them the heads up? If you're advocating just paying direct then surely the OP should just do that rather than give the EA opportunity to add fees.

World of difference between what BA is saying and what you are suggesting. This is not about avoiding fees, its about showing the EA the possible consequence of his actions.


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Dodgeball said:

Well no. I think when you say set aside most think of the civil precure, this is not the case here, as said CPR does not apply. From the link

Q&A: Setting Aside Liability Orders

Q.       The council is planning to enforce a liability order, but the debtor is seeking to set it aside on the basis that the debt is disputed.  How should we deal with this?

 

A.      Whilst the magistrates’ court does have the power to re-open criminal cases, there is no corresponding power in respect of non-payment of council tax or business rates, which is a civil matter.  Equally, there are provisions within the Civil Procedure Rules to set aside court orders in the county court and high court, but the CPR do not apply to magistrates’ court proceedings. 

 

Which I think is what I said.

 

Not sure why you stopped there - being a little selective aren't we? The rest of that section says:

 

Common law route

However, the authority to set aside liability orders has now been established as a common law principle following a series of three cases beginning in 2002.

 

Etc, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Dodgeball said:

World of difference between what BA is saying and what you are suggesting. This is not about avoiding fees, its about showing the EA the possible consequence of his actions.

 

BA advised the OP to inform the bailiff that if they don't send a new NOE he will pay the arrears direct to the council. This surely means that although the account is with the EA, paying the arrears direct to the council is a valid option, otherwise why even advise it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, otterlyendo said:

 

Not sure why you stopped there - being a little selective aren't we? The rest of that section says:

 

Common law route

However, the authority to set aside liability orders has now been established as a common law principle following a series of three cases beginning in 2002.

 

Etc, etc.

Not reallyzsure why you stopped there.

The debtor has no entitlement to do so simply because the liability order is disputed.  In the recent case of Dias v London Borough of Havering [2011] EWHC 172 the court held that even though the majority of liability order proceedings may be viewed as a “rubberstamping” exercise without the protection of a full judicial process and with limited rights of appeal, a bankruptcy court cannot look behind the liability order unless the debtor or interested party is able to demonstrate that it was obtained by fraud, collusion or a miscarriage of justice.

I think you are confusing common law and civil law. Again setting a principle and being able to actually make the complaint are miles apart, if you did read the whole case, it is about a completely different scenari to a member of the public just challenging his bill. You were thinking of making a claim, to the civil court etc. now you seek to enlong you mistake into other teriories wont work this time.

 

Enough nonesense now.

Edited by Dodgeball

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dodgeball said:

Not reallyzsure why you stopped there.

The debtor has no entitlement to do so simply because the liability order is disputed.  In the recent case of Dias v London Borough of Havering [2011] EWHC 172 the court held that even though the majority of liability order proceedings may be viewed as a “rubberstamping” exercise without the protection of a full judicial process and with limited rights of appeal, a bankruptcy court cannot look behind the liability order unless the debtor or interested party is able to demonstrate that it was obtained by fraud, collusion or a miscarriage of justice.

I think you are confusing common law and civil law. Again setting a principle and belong able to actually do are miles apart, if you did read the whole case, it is about a completely different scenari0o to a member of the public just challenging his bill. You were thinking of making a claim, to the civil court etc. now you seek to enlong you mistake into other teriories wont work this time.

 

Enough nonesense now.

 

Oh for heaven's sake, you've quoted from the section about bankruptcy.

 

The fact remains that a liability order absolutely can be set aside. Not by the CivPR obviously but by other means, ie LGA 2003 s82. Another part of the page says:

 

3.             The application to the justices for the order to be set aside must be made promptly after a defendant learns that it has been made or has notice that any order may have been made. Prompt action means a matter of days or at most a very few weeks, not months and certainly not as much as year.

 

Your earlier advice simply implies that there is no means of removing a LO once in place, even if it's made erroneously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You were thinking of making a claim, to the civil court etc. now you seek to enlong you mistake into other teriories wont work this time.

 

Don't recall where I said anything about making a claim. Just merely stating that a LO can be set aside.

 

Can't decipher the rest of that sentence I'm afraid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, otterlyendo said:

 

BA advised the OP to inform the bailiff that if they don't send a new NOE he will pay the arrears direct to the council. This surely means that although the account is with the EA, paying the arrears direct to the council is a valid option, otherwise why even advise it?

3 minutes ago, otterlyendo said:

 

Oh for heaven's sake, you've quoted from the section about bankruptcy.

 

The fact remains that a liability order absolutely can be set aside. Not by the CivPR obviously but by other means, ie LGA 2003 s82. Another part of the page says:

 

3.             The application to the justices for the order to be set aside must be made promptly after a defendant learns that it has been made or has notice that any order may have been made. Prompt action means a matter of days or at most a very few weeks, not months and certainly not as much as year.

 

Your earlier advice simply implies that there is no means of removing a LO once in place, even if it's made erroneously. 

What are you talking about the words liability order are mentioned in the quote? That complaint has to be made via the authority, I think you will find and the criteria above still apply. IE not for just saying the bill is wrong, the authority has to agree and send the complaint. Wandering about again, typical.


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the other silly remark, again BA is talking about continuing the enforcement you are talking about fee avoidance?


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 236 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...